You "see" about as good as you debate.Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
If you say so, chief. I just call 'em like I see 'em.
Cheers.
Printable View
You "see" about as good as you debate.Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
If you say so, chief. I just call 'em like I see 'em.
Cheers.
I think the point is that IF the Palestinians had the technology to attack "military" targets (ass zooming this stoopid distinction) they would. Given that they don't have the technology, they do what they can.
But the greater point is that it's all violence perpetrated on the innocent, independent of the holiest of intentions.
Clearly we are at odds. Some believe in the distinction, some of us don't. Can we move on?
Sure, boss. You see a rogue semi-state engaged in evil through unprecedented terrorist attacks on civilian targets in combination with a US/Western ally strictly retaliating for unprevoked acts of terror.
I see a war. Nothing is really fair in war and each side is going to use whatever means they can to destroy the other. Israel uses our hightech, generally accurate weapons and tactics in an attempt to pinpoint and eradicate selected targets. The other side uses terror as a tactic in an attempt to both destabilize the opposing power structure and to generate fear and uncertainty in its enemy.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Sure, boss. You see a rogue semi-state engaged in evil through unprecedented terrorist attacks on civilian targets in combination with a US/Western ally strictly retaliating for unprevoked acts of terror.
I see a war. Nothing is really fair in war and each side is going to use whatever means they can to destroy the other. Israel uses our hightech, generally accurate weapons and tactics in an attempt to pinpoint and eradicate selected targets. The other side uses terror as a tactic in an attempt to both destabilize the opposing power structure and to generate fear and uncertainty in its enemy.
One person's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist." They are just labels for the same thing.
Easy there Gaper, don't overreact. I suspect Floater wasn't morally justifying suicide bombings, but just pointing out how each side is doing what it feels it has to do in order to disable the other.
This still just rings false, no matter how many times it's repeated. There are those who consider terror a legitimate means of fighting, and those who don't. It just happens that among Palestinians terrorism is considered not just acceptable, but a lofty goal.Quote:
Originally posted by KQ
One person's "freedom fighter" is another's "terrorist." They are just labels for the same thing.
There are plenty of independence movements that have avoided using attacks on civilians, and some have been much more successful than the Palestinians have been. The Israeli independence movement had branches that used terrorism on a very few (infamous) occasions, but this was something the movement as a whole tried to contain and eliminate--quite different from what we see today with the PA.
To claim that the Palestinians are using the only options open to them is to completely ignore their history of refusing to negotiate and compromise.
There's no way to argue that Israel is blameless in much of this, but to constantly heap blame on Israel and condemn it for protecting itself only isolates Israel and contributes to the already very real seige mentality that exists. It also, ironically, strengthens those who endorse the most hard-line approach. This is probably not good for anyone.
There does need to be a fundamental change in the Palestinian leadership for negotiations to be successful--Israel cannot be expected to give in to demands made while they are literally under fire from the PA and its proxies. Whether or not the Palestinians are willing to do this, and are capable of it politically, is not up to Israel or anyone else, really. But until the Palestinians decide that targeting Israeli busses, schools, and restaurants is something that should be ended, I'm not sure what anyone has the right to expect of Israel.
It seems far too easy, and hypocritical, to me to sit back and tell Israel that its policy of going after terrorists is wrong. If anyone thinks about it realistically, I doubt they would want their governments to just sit back and surrender to terrorists bent on destroying their states.
Finally, I simply can't imagine accepting terror attacks as legitimate--a question that I think needs an answer: do we give al-Qaeda the same right to use the 'tools' available to it that some on this board want to give to the Palestinians?
Fortunately for us, our situation is a bit different. I don't think most Americans feel themselves under constant terror attack--I'm not even sure you can find someone in Israel today who hasn't known someone killed in an attack.Quote:
Originally posted by Buster Highmen
While I can see your rationale, let's hope that most Americans don't.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
in the context of the upcoming election.
I wasn't endorsing the rationale, as Sharon was not the guy I hoped to see leading Israel, just explaining it.
The problem is that there is almost no voice of moderation among Palestinians. Have you ever heard of a Palestinian rally for peace? Neither have I. The suicide bomber is revered by nearly everyone as a 'martyr'--if you've ever been in the territories this is immediately obvious, and quite scary. Those who would work in good faith with Israel are often seen as collaboraters and sometimes marked for death.Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Not knockin' you, Jetter, but would you leave your house, job, everyone you know and move to another part of the world because shit "doesn't seem to be working"? Most Israelis I know (granted, only a few) say that most Israelis are wanting peace, just like most Palistinians.
To quote anyone from Hamas, Al Q, et al and claim their stance to be any sort of collective muslim voice would be like quoting the Grand Dragon of the KKK and tabbing it "American". Some folks here would rather not accept that, me thinks.
I'm not sure - but I think you're reading more into my statement than I intended to say.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Lots of words you can read above........
Let me state, for the record - I DO NOT accept terrorist attacks, I DO NOT accept preemptive strikes, I DO NOT accept killing. To me they are all the same and the idea that one is more acceptable than another is absurd (to me).
If someone is standing in a crowd with a bomb that you know he will set off to kill many people, is it acceptable to kill that person?
And I didn't mean to read anything into your statement, I was just starting with the 'freedom fighter' thing.
No, that would be a violation of his civil liberty to kill people.
Have you been? Would like to hear more about this.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
if you've ever been in the territories this is immediately obvious, and quite scary.
I've been in the West Bank a few times (years ago--between Intifadas). Never in Gaza, as I'm not too insane (although I know people who have been, and served in the military there).
I was there once about three days after a very famous, revered, bombmaker had been killed--I'm not sure if it was ever clear whether or not Israel got him with a bomb in his cell phone, or if his own explosives did it, but either way there were posters of him everywhere. Seriously, just about every wall had hundreds of images of him (this was Bethlehem, BTW).
The people were friendly, but it was still pretty scary at times. I felt fairly secure since the people I was with looked pretty 'American', and not so Israeli, but I would not have wanted to walk around there alone at night.
A big part of the culture does revere 'martyrdom' and the killing of Jews (and non-Muslims in general, probably), and this may be one of the biggest problems.
Best shawarma, hummus, etc. that I've ever had.
The "Freedom Fighter" example comes from our own government.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
And I didn't mean to read anything into your statement, I was just starting with the 'freedom fighter' thing.
In the 80's we supported Bin Laden and his followers. We (the US government) considered them "Freedom Fighters” in the war against the Soviet backed Afghani’s. Now that they have turned their "guns" on us we call them "terrorists."
It just seems to me - where you stand depends on where you sit.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
Good logic. Because Palistinians would not use Apaches if we gave 'em a few, right? :rolleyes:
They use what they have--namely TNT and other explosives--and they use it in the only way they can. Somehow throwing TNT sticks at tanks and Apaches prolly doesn't work so well and those slings and rocks just aren't reaching Sharon's place.
They wouldn't be able to either. most those f'ing ingrates cannot even read. have you heard the amount of times they've blown themselves up?? They cannot even operate TNT correctly.
keep making excuses for them. They'll keep blowing themselves up to the tune of their extinction.
Not for me.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
If someone is standing in a crowd with a bomb that you know he will set off to kill many people, is it acceptable to kill that person?
Per you sig, I now know that you're crazy too. :pQuote:
Originally posted by mr_gyptian
They wouldn't be able to either. most those f'ing ingrates cannot even read. have you heard the amount of times they've blown themselves up?? They cannot even operate TNT correctly.
keep making excuses for them. They'll keep blowing themselves up to the tune of their extinction.
I think there are many in that crowd who would disagree with you though, and why should your belief in non-violence trump their right to remain alive?Quote:
Originally posted by KQ
Not for me.
I believe absolutely that if the only way to stop a murderer is to kill him, it is morally just and even required to do so.
That is what Israel's policy, and indeed all self-defense, is based on.
This is a bit inaccurate in that the U.S. never directly supported bin Laden--he was associated with the mujehadin we were supporting.Quote:
Originally posted by KQ
The "Freedom Fighter" example comes from our own government.
In the 80's we supported Bin Laden and his followers. We (the US government) considered them "Freedom Fighters” in the war against the Soviet backed Afghani’s. Now that they have turned their "guns" on us we call them "terrorists."
It just seems to me - where you stand depends on where you sit.
I don't think the U.S. was supporting Afghan attacks on Soviet civilians though, regardless of the label the USSR applied to the fighters.
Al Qaeda and bin Laden are now using considerably different tactics than what the Afghans used against the invading Soviet military.
I seem to recall that bin Laden was trained by the CIA and perhaps other US agencies. In any case, I'm certain that he received direct support.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
This is a bit inaccurate in that the U.S. never directly supported bin Laden--he was associated with the mujehadin we were supporting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
I think there are many in that crowd who would disagree with you though, and why should your belief in non-violence trump their right to remain alive?
I believe absolutely that if the only way to stop a murderer is to kill him, it is morally just and even required to do so.
That is what Israel's policy, and indeed all self-defense, is based on.
Dex - really you're reading more into my posts than I write.
All I am saying is that I, myself, would not kill that person. That is all. If I KNEW he were there I would yell and shout for ppl to clear the area and point the authorities to him.
Though I might tell others I don't believe in an eye for an eye, ultimately they have to live their lives just as I have to live mine.
I never said my beliefs trump anyone else’s.
BTW - there are other ways to protect ppl besides taking out the suicide bomber. I know of a bus driver in Israel that stopped a bomber from blowing up his bus without killing him. It can be done.
Why are you so concerned with my path of non-violence?
No Dex - in this you are wrong. We made Bin Laden who his is today.Quote:
Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
This is a bit inaccurate in that the U.S. never directly supported bin Laden--he was associated with the mujehadin we were supporting.
I don't think the U.S. was supporting Afghan attacks on Soviet civilians though, regardless of the label the USSR applied to the fighters.
Al Qaeda and bin Laden are now using considerably different tactics than what the Afghans used against the invading Soviet military.
And I never said anything about Soviet civilians.
Come on Dex - stop this - tactics change, evolve, morph but that does not mean they did not have a common breeding ground.
edit: to include a '/' I forgot.
Quote:
Originally posted by KQ
No Dex - in this you are wrong. We made Bin Laden who his is today.
False. I don't know where this started, but it's based on misinformation. There's no way anyone can reasonably claim we 'made' bin Laden who he is. That's like saying Islam made him who he is.
Quote:
And I never said anything about Soviet civilians.
I know, but for the parallel you drew to be true there would have to have been attacks on Soviet civilians in Russia, just like the attacks in Israel.
This is true and shows again that the U.S. usually has too narrow a perspective, but simply supporting a group that someone is a member of does not make the U.S. responsible for what he later does. It's not as if bin Laden has relied on U.S. tactics, support, or material for his attacks (well, some stolen aircraft, but...).Quote:
Come on Dex - stop this - tactics change, evolve, morph but that does not mean they did not have a common breeding ground.
Dex twists words, miscontstrues your statements and argues for the sake of it. Don't waste your time on him. He's an idiot.
From an AP story:
During the 1980s, the United States supported several ragtag rebel groups eager to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Americans provided funds and arms, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
"Bin Laden was just emerging as a leader, but he was already an Islamic idealist, clearly with no love for the West," Lacoste said in an interview, one of several with veterans of that period who sketch a similar picture.
Although bin Laden insists he never took any CIA funds directly, he was heavily funded by Saudi interests and received American logistical and political support, Lacoste said.
U.S. officials at the time say aid was given first under President Carter and then under President Reagan. Reagan once praised the Afghans and Arab guerrillas who helped them as "freedom fighters."
Herman Cohen, who in the 1980s was deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence and then on the National Security Council, said aid was channeled through Pakistan and given to groups selected by Pakistanis.
"We didn't understand at that point what was happening," Cohen said. "I don't think any analyst back then thought these were bad guys in Afghanistan. We were thinking about the Cold War and the Reagan Doctrine."
Some of the Pakistanis involved were themselves Islamic fundamentalists, he added. Cohen is now a private consultant in African affairs.
Ed Girardet, a writer and humanitarian aid specialist who has covered Afghanistan since 1980, first met bin Laden a decade ago when the wealthy Saudi set up camps where combat-hardened Afghans trained Arab fighters.
"He was always after some purist Islamic state which exists nowhere in the world," Girardet said. "He had a deep hatred of anything from the West. Unlike the Afghans, his radical Arab followers wouldn't even shake your hand."
Bin Laden made ample use of the American equipment lavished on rebel groups during the Soviet resistance, he said. When Moscow retreated in 1989, CIA operatives departed, leaving splintered factions to fight for supremacy.
"The United States really blew it," Girardet said. "They dropped Afghanistan like a hot potato."
Bin Laden was lionized when he returned to Saudi Arabia but soon ran afoul of the kingdom's ruling family. He moved to Sudan, building up his organization, and then to Afghanistan when the Taliban Islamic militia took power in 1996.
There is an article in the New Yorker that came out last year. The writer's name is Goldberg. There are numerous account of how little the outside fighters from other arab lands(which would stand to reason with their historic lack of success warring elsewhere) helped the Afghans. We provided advisors and gave them SAM's. We left after that. Their ultimate goal was not terrorizing an innocent citizenry, it was defending their country from the USSR.
very different from the Reuter's "freedom fighters".
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, umm, fire bombing of Drezden - 80,000 civilians dead in one night, fire bombing of Tokyo - 100,000 civilians dead in one night, umm, Drezden specifically didn't have a single military target to speak of. Not that the germans didn't deserve it, but targeting civilians has been a legitimate practice in a shitload of wars and USA alone can claim civilian bodycount near 1 mil in WW2 alone. 2 wrong don't make a right, but to claim that one side has more scruples then the other is retarded.
Palestinian land was taken from them, mostly by force, their beef is legit. Israel has the same rights to exist as every other country. If the Palestinians had all the toys I'm sure they wouldn't act any better. truth is right, the Middle East can't be fixed. Columbus stumbled his way around the world to get to India rather then go through the Middles East and deal with those people. Everybody is fucked, and I have no point. Later.
Truth is right on target with this one...you can piss in your neighbors shoes all you want as long as you don't mind having him shit in your posies. Unfortunately the pissers and shitters take umbrage to each others release of bodily waste. Furthermore, they large reserves in their bowels and bladders.
Level the sandbox.
Is it our fight? No. But with our nation's history of perpetuating manifest destiny, we'll be mired in it forever.
Large deposites of prozac in either sides aquifers might help quell the angst in the long run.
Equalizing the playing fields by providing weapons of equal destructive qualities to aggresive third-world regimes? Great idea...has worked all over the middle east in the last 30-years.:rolleyes:
Ship a few thousand tons of dynamite to the oganizations who perpetuate the suicide bombings might nip a few suicide attacks in the bud...its far less stable than TNT.
not reading any posts and never posting in the thread again but the problem with the Palestinans and Israelis is a simple question of math as Tom Friedman put it If lets say you have 10 Terrorists/Freedom fighters
The israelis think if they kill 2 terroists then there are 2 less terrorists who can attack them so therefore 10-2=8
The palestinians think if they send 2 freedom fighters who will give their lives to avenge the israeli attack then 4 more youths will join the resistance so therefore 10-2+4=12
You don't have to be good at numbers to realize that cyclical violence and escalation doesn't lead to good things. As a person of Faith, I think that what is happening to HOLY land is absolutely wrong and I think that whoever you belive in is gravely saddend by bloodshed in the land. To me, I would rather see the dome of the rock/western wall/way of the cross BULLDOZED and declaired a nuclear waste disposal site then see another drop of blood shed over what is Gods land. I hope there is a WARM room reserved for the leaders of Israel/Palistine who CONTINUE this silly war rather then make peace. Peace isn't easy in this case but is it worth the blood of the innocents?
"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;
WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
October 3, 2001
(IAP News)
In my opinon, Dexter's posts in this thread are thoughtful and well-considered. I agree with him entirely.
To those who disagree with him I ask these two questions:
-What should Israel do? and,
-Why should the U.S. abandon the only ally we have in that part of the world?
Because it will only cause bloodshed until it is no longer, pretty simple.Quote:
Originally posted by iceman
-Why should the U.S. abandon the only ally we have in that part of the world?
Oh He Was Just Another Islamic Leader
You've heard of CAIR, haven't you? That's the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This is a group that spends most of its time trying its best to ignore Islamic terrorism while searching for any incidents of insensitivity shown toward Muslims by weary Americans.
CAIR has now made its feelings known on the death of Hamas terrorist Ahmed Yassin. CAIR, of course, condemns Israel for the killing of Yassin, and calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader." Wait ... it gets more ridiculous than that. CAIR says that the international community has to "take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence."
Thanks to James Taranto's Opinion Journal column, we can now take a look at the Covenant of the Hamas. This document was issued on August 18, 1988. It is the founding document of Hamas. CAIR calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader?" Yeah .. the leader of Hamas.
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the Covenant of the Hamas
Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."
Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]."
Now just what was it that CAIR said in their statement on the death of Ahmed Yassin? Oh yeah ... "The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence." Read those bits from the founding document of Hamas ... and then spend a few of your precious moments thinking about how idiotic it is for CAIR to be imploring the international community to talk about "wanton Israeli violence." Didn't we read something about "fight Jews and kill them" and "there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him"? And the world needs to protect these goons from those bad, bad Israelis?
CAIR is a joke. When will the media start treating it as such?
Memo to Jews re: Day of JudgmentQuote:
Originally posted by Creamy Goodness
Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."
Find something to hide behind that is not a rock or a tree.